Group items tagged

n remarks at a news conference Thursday, Clinton said the United States will hold talks with the United Arab Emirates over its decision to suspend some BlackBerry services due to security concerns. "We are taking time to consult and analyze the full the range of interests and issues at stake because we know that there is a legitimate security concern," she said. "But there is also a legitimate right of free use and access. So I think we will be pursuing both technical and expert discussions as we go forward."

This article discusses how a simulated war game called "Cyber ShockWave" can turn any electronic item, for example, cell phone or computer can be "weapons" used to shut down the Internet during terrorist attack. The notion of privacy and civil liberties, should expect to be ceased for Americans during a crisis of that level. During this mock scenario, it was revealed that "[The United States] don't have the authority in this nation as a government to quarantine people's cellphones." Which during a state of emergency brings to question if Internet carriers should allow their networks to be monitored. How secure is online security, and who is the enemy, becomes difficult to discern, as any threat to national security arises.

The United Kingdom parliament has passed the Digital Economy Bill, an extensive and controversial piece of legislation, by a vote of 189 to 47. The legislation encompasses online copyright infringement, Internet piracy, regulation of TV and radio, the classification of video games, regulations over ISPs, and a hodgepodge of other digital topics.

Wow. Read it and weep. Tim O'Reilly is promoting this article. I haven't read anything quite so scarily propagandist since Caberet. What do I mean? (and who is this 'state'?) Courtesy of One Economy Corporation "If e-mail lives in the cloud, who owns that information?" says State Department's Alec Ross. Cloud computing is a double-edged sword in the fight for Internet freedom, a top State Department official said on Wednesday." "During a major policy speech in January, Clinton announced that Internet freedom would become a strategic priority for the United States in 2010. In March, State revived the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, a Bush administration initiative that worked to harmonize policies departmentwide on protecting free speech. The renamed NetFreedom Task Force met on March 4, when 19 telecommunications and information technology companies discussed the corporate sector's role in facilitating Internet freedom."

Good article on the social and political uses of social media (sic.) in Indonesia. There have been attempts to filter/censor content, but so far they have been avoided. Uses of Twitter, Facebook by politicians is also described. 

Australian government ask googel to hand over user data. Google has for the first time released information about the number of such requests that it gets from countries around the world.Top of the list is Brazil, followed by Germany, the United States and India.

The US government is being encouraged by various committees and "experts" to increase regulation of the Internet. The Internet is compared industry to the car industry before regulation was introduced to make cars safer. Apparently the "Internet Wild West" is over!

This article discusses a report which looks at the possibilities of applying an open source model & culture which has been associated with building and proliferating the Mozilla browser to the Obama administration's initiatives to be "more transparent, participatory and collaborative".  

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) scheme has been adopted in Uruguay and Panama, in a move that has received support from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. The article also refers to the need for more laptops in disaster-affected Haiti, as well as Clinton's opinion on the Google China controversy.

Study into the US Safe Harbor is an agreement between the European Commission and the United States Department of Commerce that enables organisations to join a Safe Harbor List to demonstrate their compliance with the European Union Data Protection Directive.

A 'Digital Economy Bill' was passed by the House of Lords recently, and this article look at its implications for internet users whose freedom to share files will be punishable by a severing of their internet connection.

The Pentagon receives thousands of attempts to from hackers/crackers to access their defense computers. They are deciding to fight fire with fire and train their employees to understand hacking so they can be prepared. Sounds like a good idea, just maybe one they should have had years ago...

A comprehensive study conducted by the Pew Center for Research in the States looks at one of the demographics that experience the 'digital divide' - people with a chronic illness. The results indicate that although people with chronic diseases are less likely to have access to the internet, those that do use it productively to contribute to the online bank of knowledge about health-realated topics, as well as forming supportive online communities.

thanks Tiana, I'm actually covering a related topic in my DRP journal article. This is really helpful.

In the US a coalition consisting of Google, Microsoft, Ebay, AT&T, and Intel is fighting for a change of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that was enacted in 1986. The coalition stresses the fact that the Internet has changed tremendously since then and the law therefore needs to be adapted. It protects files in the homes of people but law enforcement entities do not need judicial warrant to view files stored with ISPs, in the cloud or get GPS data from mobile phones.\nDefinitely a case worth fighting for - and an opportunity for Google & Co. to get good press. What about the law that allows checking and copying peoples' computer harddrives at airports though?

The University of California published a report about Internet privacy. 1.000 Americans were interviewed last summer. The result: 55% are more concerned about privacy issues then they were five years ago - mainly because they know more about the subject now. But still only 14% read privacy policies on websites. Besides that younger Internet users belief that their privacy is protected by the law.

This article (posted yesterday) is about the announcement of a huge China-based cyber espionage which stole thousands of documents - including classified information, visa applications, and personal identities - from "politically sensitive targets" around the world using platforms such as Twitter, Google Groups, Blogspot, Baidu Blogs, blog.com and Yahoo Mail to maintain persistent control of infected computers. Among the targets: the offices of the Dalai Lama, the United Nations as well as Indian and Pakistani government officials. Also available in this article, a report document of 58 pages about "Investigating Cyber Espionnage" (scribd application)

What happens when an institution that is supposed to be safe, violates your personal rights? This article discusses how a high school in Philadelphia installed software on their lap tops that would capture photos of the user of the lap top. Though the software was intended for recovery measures of stolen lap tops, it appears that the software goes beyond photos taken from the software contained images of chats, and content that the user was viewing, to the users themselves dressing., as it spies upon the user's interactions with peers. This brings to question whether or not to trust institutional technology, and whether or not they should stipulate that some software installed may violate the users right to privacy.

Canada, alongside France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom have issued a warning to Google on the grounds that the company is ignoring privacy and legislation with respect to launching their products (Google Buzz). This is a clear example of when a company, may appear to attempt to protect their users (Google vs. China) while, in the company's own interest, these rules and regulations may be ignored. How much trust should we put into any company that offers services free to the public, and exactly what liberties do we give up when we sign up for that service?